User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/14/2015 6:18:17 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow. Rough week. Tell me about it..... Week one and I lose one of my best players for 4-6 weeks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2015 12:44:06 PM EDT
[#2]
I need Bridgewater to get me around 45 points... then I have a small chance at winning my matchup.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2015 3:12:36 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I need Bridgewater to get me around 45 points... then I have a small chance at winning my matchup. I wasn't expecting Bridgewater to do much more than trying not to screw up the hand off to Peterson. He's worthless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2015 12:54:39 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wasn't expecting Bridgewater to do much more than trying not to screw up the hand off to Peterson. He's worthless. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I need Bridgewater to get me around 45 points... then I have a small chance at winning my matchup. I wasn't expecting Bridgewater to do much more than trying not to screw up the hand off to Peterson. He's worthless. McKinnon looked better than Peterson in limited duty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2015 7:09:07 PM EDT
[#5]
Looks like it's you and me, $89.
The rest of them don't stand a chance.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2015 7:47:05 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks like it's you and me, $89. The rest of them don't stand a chance.
i got 89 problems and you ain't one |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2015 8:24:07 PM EDT
[#7]
Very interested in the game tonight, as I expect we may be seeing the beginning of the end for Peyton Manning as an NFL QB.
He may very well be the best ever, but eventually everybody ages out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2015 4:34:55 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Very interested in the game tonight, as I expect we may be seeing the beginning of the end for Peyton Manning as an NFL QB. He may very well be the best ever, but eventually everybody ages out. Not quite Mr. Tom. He is still capable and proved it last night. Did he look great in the first half, nope. But did he come through when needed? yep. They are 2-0 I think it is more of the new offensive scheme then it is Peyton. Just my 2 cents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2015 5:47:19 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not quite Mr. Tom. He is still capable and proved it last night. Did he look great in the first half, nope. But did he come through when needed? yep. They are 2-0 I think it is more of the new offensive scheme then it is Peyton. Just my 2 cents. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Very interested in the game tonight, as I expect we may be seeing the beginning of the end for Peyton Manning as an NFL QB. He may very well be the best ever, but eventually everybody ages out. Not quite Mr. Tom. He is still capable and proved it last night. Did he look great in the first half, nope. But did he come through when needed? yep. They are 2-0 I think it is more of the new offensive scheme then it is Peyton. Just my 2 cents. I doubt he plays next year, and my eyebrow is raised with regards to his performance so far this season. His fantasy value may well be dropping faster than his real world value (see that 2-0 record you referenced) but in any case 39 is OLD for an NFL QB. I am very curious to see if the Broncos go with Osweiler or try to draft someone. I'd love to see Osweiler play a couple of games start-to-finish just to see what he's got. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2015 7:57:11 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I doubt he plays next year, and my eyebrow is raised with regards to his performance so far this season. His fantasy value may well be dropping faster than his real world value (see that 2-0 record you referenced) but in any case 39 is OLD for an NFL QB. I am very curious to see if the Broncos go with Osweiler or try to draft someone. I'd love to see Osweiler play a couple of games start-to-finish just to see what he's got. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Very interested in the game tonight, as I expect we may be seeing the beginning of the end for Peyton Manning as an NFL QB. He may very well be the best ever, but eventually everybody ages out. Not quite Mr. Tom. He is still capable and proved it last night. Did he look great in the first half, nope. But did he come through when needed? yep. They are 2-0 I think it is more of the new offensive scheme then it is Peyton. Just my 2 cents. I doubt he plays next year, and my eyebrow is raised with regards to his performance so far this season. His fantasy value may well be dropping faster than his real world value (see that 2-0 record you referenced) but in any case 39 is OLD for an NFL QB. I am very curious to see if the Broncos go with Osweiler or try to draft someone. I'd love to see Osweiler play a couple of games start-to-finish just to see what he's got. I won't argue with anything you said. I agree. This is it and you can see he is struggling to throw. Just a bit, but those who have watched him throughout his career will see it. I'm just hoping he has enough left for one more ring. So far two games in it is really hard to say. He is still better than 1/2 the QB's playing in the league right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2015 5:32:41 AM EDT
[#11]
Manning was great the first half of last year when I had him. Then it started getting cold, and injuries started popping up... He just wasn't the same.
He started throwing a lot of interceptions including 4 the week of the league championship... 
ESPN has used words like "miserable" to describe how he feels this year in the new offense. He is great if he can hold it together, but I think it is a high risk/high reward scenario at best this year. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 3:01:04 PM EDT
[#12]
Holy injuries, Batman!
Rough week for fantasy football GMs all over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 3:12:57 PM EDT
[#13]
Yeah seems like there's a lot of significant injuries already this season.
Of course 2 of them are Cowboys... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 3:21:18 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Holy injuries, Batman! Rough week for fantasy football GMs all over. No shit, I've got Romo, Bryant, and Lacy on one team in another Auction league...seasons over already in that one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2015 4:15:47 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No shit, I've got Romo, Bryant, and Lacy on one team in another Auction league...seasons over already in that one. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Holy injuries, Batman! Rough week for fantasy football GMs all over. No shit, I've got Romo, Bryant, and Lacy on one team in another Auction league...seasons over already in that one. Hyde is concussed. Before he could even finish the best performance by a WR not named Antonio Brown on my team this week - even though he was on my bench - Eric Decker goes down with a knee injury. At halftime of MNF, I was seriously thinking I might be able to trade him for an upgrade at RB...  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2015 9:36:58 PM EDT
[#16]
Feels like I say this every year, but injuries seem crazy high so far.
I've lost two starters in two weeks. Losing Cameron isn't a deal-breaker, but losing Dez is definitely not good.. lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2015 1:05:57 PM EDT
[#17]
I don't know if we've ever talked about adding an IR spot to the rosters in this league, but I think we should.
As a keeper league, an IR spot would be nice. You can move an injured player to your IR spot to pick up a free agent or waiver wire claim replacement instead of being forced to drop someone. With the short bench we have in this league, an IR spot becomes even more valuable. Obviously we would not make this change for the 2015 season, but for 2016 or beyond I think we should seriously consider it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2015 3:07:49 PM EDT
[#18]
Haven't we had an IR spot in the past? I thought we did.. I was thinking about that when people were mentioning dropping Jordy Nelson.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2015 3:08:22 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Haven't we had an IR spot in the past? I thought we did.. I was thinking about that when people were mentioning dropping Jordy Nelson. You know, I think we may have at one time...  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2015 5:16:15 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know, I think we may have at one time...
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Haven't we had an IR spot in the past? I thought we did.. I was thinking about that when people were mentioning dropping Jordy Nelson. You know, I think we may have at one time...
I think we still do. I never removed it. It is a pain in the ass to find, and use. But I do believe it is there. I am really busy right now but will take a look in the settings today or tomorrow and let you guys know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2015 3:09:41 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think we still do. I never removed it. It is a pain in the ass to find, and use. But I do believe it is there. I am really busy right now but will take a look in the settings today or tomorrow and let you guys know. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Haven't we had an IR spot in the past? I thought we did.. I was thinking about that when people were mentioning dropping Jordy Nelson. You know, I think we may have at one time... I think we still do. I never removed it. It is a pain in the ass to find, and use. But I do believe it is there. I am really busy right now but will take a look in the settings today or tomorrow and let you guys know. Per the league settings, we do have a single IR spot. I think it only shows up on your roster page when you have a player with the Injured Reserve tag and you select that player as if you were going to move them to the bench. At that time, the IR spot will show up as a potential destination for that player. Once the player is in the IR slot, you will see them on your roster page in that slot so long as they are there. If they come off of IR, you won't be able to make any roster changes without moving them out of that spot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2015 10:10:42 PM EDT
[#22]
Yes. We have one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2015 12:27:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Yahoo! is fucked when it comes to waiver processing.
If you are #1 in the waiver order, you can submit as many waiver claims as you want and you will get them all before the second person on the list gets their first claim processed. For example, this week's waiver claims processed like this: Waiver 1 - Claim 1 Waiver 1 - Claim 2 Waiver 2 - Claim 1 Waiver 2 - Claim 2 Waiver 3 - Claim 1 Waiver 3 - Claim 2 Waiver 4 - Claim 1 Waiver 4 - Claim 2 Waiver 5 - Claim 1 Waiver 6 - Claim 1 Waiver 6 - Claim 2 Waiver 7 - Claim 1 Waiver 7 - Claim 2 They should have gone like this: Waiver 1 - Claim 1 Waiver 2 - Claim 1 Waiver 3 - Claim 1 Waiver 4 - Claim 1 Waiver 5 - Claim 1 Waiver 6 - Claim 1 Waiver 7 - Claim 1 Waiver 1 - Claim 2 Waiver 2 - Claim 2 Waiver 3 - Claim 2 Waiver 4 - Claim 2 Waiver 6 - Claim 2 Waiver 7 - Claim 2 I was the 5th GM in the waiver order. My first successful claim was processed as the 9th transaction. My highest priority claim was processed as the 6th transaction. Under the stupid Yahoo! waiver process system, my top priority claim was taken before my turn came up. Under a sane waiver processing system, I get that guy with the 5th claim. Fucking Yahoo! is retarded. Waiver claims should go from 1-12 with a single claim for each team. Then start again going 1-12 to process any remaining claims. This should repeat, going through the waiver order with a single transaction per team as many times as it takes to confirm or deny all claims. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2015 6:09:19 PM EDT
[#24]
Has it been that way since the beginning of the season? There always seems to be something wrong with these sites.
I need all the help I can get though... My starters are dropping like flies...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2015 6:41:22 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Has it been that way since the beginning of the season? There always seems to be something wrong with these sites. I need all the help I can get though... My starters are dropping like flies... I can only imagine so. I have not gone back and reviewed the transaction log for previous weeks. It appears as though all of a team's waiver claims are processed before the system goes to the next team on the waiver priority. In my mind, it should process a single transaction per team in order of priority then start again at the top of the priority list and go through it a second time, repeating that process until all claims have been filled or denied. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2015 7:36:11 PM EDT
[#26]
Yeah, that is the way it is supposed to be. That is the point of prioritizing claims by starting with the greatest need for the team.
It is either messed up or a default setting might be different this year or something without us knowing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 10:30:05 AM EDT
[#27]
Agreed with the above. That doesn't seem right.
https://help.yahoo.com/kb/SLN6811.html If multiple teams make a claim on a player, the team with the highest priority is awarded the player -- but it also means they'll be moved to bottom of the waiver priority list (the "rolling" list stays in effect for the entire season). So Pistol you're saying that didn't happen this week? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 12:34:48 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agreed with the above. That doesn't seem right. https://help.yahoo.com/kb/SLN6811.html So Pistol you're saying that didn't happen this week? Quote HistoryQuoted: Agreed with the above. That doesn't seem right. https://help.yahoo.com/kb/SLN6811.html If multiple teams make a claim on a player, the team with the highest priority is awarded the player -- but it also means they'll be moved to bottom of the waiver priority list (the "rolling" list stays in effect for the entire season). So Pistol you're saying that didn't happen this week? Go to the league page and select Transactions from the League menu. The waivers were processed in this order: Mav Mav Corleone Corleone Dingle Dingle Ghost Ghost Tard $89 $89 HUD HUD Unless Yahoo! processed them in a different order than they posted to the league page, which seems unlikely. It seems to me it should have been: Mav #1 Corleone - first available Dingle - first available Ghost - first available Tard - first available $89 - first available HUD - first available end of first round of claims Mav - first available etc... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 5:23:45 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed with the above. That doesn't seem right. https://help.yahoo.com/kb/SLN6811.html So Pistol you're saying that didn't happen this week? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed with the above. That doesn't seem right. https://help.yahoo.com/kb/SLN6811.html If multiple teams make a claim on a player, the team with the highest priority is awarded the player -- but it also means they'll be moved to bottom of the waiver priority list (the "rolling" list stays in effect for the entire season). So Pistol you're saying that didn't happen this week? No... I am agreeing with Tom that it should be one at a time. Sorry if I made it seem otherwise. I don't usually even look at that the transactions. The only time I do is to see which team a player I wanted ended up going to. I would have never caught it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 7:26:26 PM EDT
[#30]
I agree this seems stupid at best. It should be everyone gets a first pass, then a second and so on. Giving one team multiple picks is just stupid. I'll check the settings but I did not change a thing this year.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 5:32:11 PM EDT
[#31]
Every single player on my bench has outscored a starter.
Anybody interested in a trade? Apparently I've got a surplus... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 7:36:36 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every single player on my bench has outscored a starter. Anybody interested in a trade? Apparently I've got a surplus... Better than a bench full of injuries...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2015 12:22:34 PM EDT
[#33]
Now THAT is more like it.
Whoever picked up Thomas Rawls, I hope you started him! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2015 11:38:55 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now THAT is more like it. Whoever picked up Thomas Rawls, I hope you started him! Nah... Didn't need him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 12:05:24 PM EDT
[#35]
Man, Juicebox Smash is getting HOSED on the matchups. His PA is nearly 50 points higher than the highest PF - and that highest PF is his.
That team is 1-4 and I still think he's got a decent shot at the playoffs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 12:50:54 PM EDT
[#36]
It's just one of those years for me. Several games I thought for sure I was gonna pull out a W. Cards didn't fall right.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:33:53 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Man, Juicebox Smash is getting HOSED on the matchups. His PA is nearly 50 points higher than the highest PF - and that highest PF is his. That team is 1-4 and I still think he's got a decent shot at the playoffs. Yeah, good team for sure. Just really bad luck. I noticed in my recap that if I played Juicebox every week I would be 2-3 instead of 4-1. I'm just lucky in finding points even with all of the injuries. I was down to him by a half point right up until the last play of the game. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 8:36:36 AM EDT
[#38]
I'm surprised no one commented on me not starting a TE this past week - aside from 'Benjamin' on Yahoo Smack Talk - but I figured I'd explain anyway.
I think this has been done in the past, but I chose to go without a TE because I did not want to drop anyone from my bench. My bench consisted of: Luck - out Watkins - out Olsen - bye Steve Smith - out L. Miller - bye Jeffery - out I wasn't dropping any of those players to pick up another TE who would potentially get me what, 5 points if I'm lucky? I already had to drop Blount for Tavon Austin earlier that day to fill my WR position which I wasn't too happy about it. Fortunately I was able to win anyway so the TE decision paid off. 
Oh, and in light of this scenario, I believe we need to add an additional bench spot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 9:29:22 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm surprised no one commented on me not starting a TE this past week - aside from 'Benjamin' on Yahoo Smack Talk - but I figured I'd explain anyway. I think this has been done in the past, but I chose to go without a TE because I did not want to drop anyone from my bench. My bench consisted of: Luck - out Watkins - out Olsen - bye Steve Smith - out L. Miller - bye Jeffery - out I wasn't dropping any of those players to pick up another TE who would potentially get me what, 5 points if I'm lucky? I already had to drop Blount for Tavon Austin earlier that day to fill my WR position which I wasn't too happy about it. Fortunately I was able to win anyway so the TE decision paid off.
Oh, and in light of this scenario, I believe we need to add an additional bench spot. I noticed, and I think someone else has done it too this season. I always look at the bench to see if there are any chumps that are droppable before I say anything. I have been in that situation myself. I don't really have a lot of flexibility in my bench either now because of injuries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 11:19:01 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I noticed, and I think someone else has done it too this season. I always look at the bench to see if there are any chumps that are droppable before I say anything. I have been in that situation myself. I don't really have a lot of flexibility in my bench either now because of injuries. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised no one commented on me not starting a TE this past week - aside from 'Benjamin' on Yahoo Smack Talk - but I figured I'd explain anyway. I think this has been done in the past, but I chose to go without a TE because I did not want to drop anyone from my bench. My bench consisted of: Luck - out Watkins - out Olsen - bye Steve Smith - out L. Miller - bye Jeffery - out I wasn't dropping any of those players to pick up another TE who would potentially get me what, 5 points if I'm lucky? I already had to drop Blount for Tavon Austin earlier that day to fill my WR position which I wasn't too happy about it. Fortunately I was able to win anyway so the TE decision paid off.
Oh, and in light of this scenario, I believe we need to add an additional bench spot. I noticed, and I think someone else has done it too this season. I always look at the bench to see if there are any chumps that are droppable before I say anything. I have been in that situation myself. I don't really have a lot of flexibility in my bench either now because of injuries. Yeah 5 spots is one too few. We should change that for next season. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 12:59:59 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah 5 spots is one too few. We should change that for next season. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm surprised no one commented on me not starting a TE this past week - aside from 'Benjamin' on Yahoo Smack Talk - but I figured I'd explain anyway. I think this has been done in the past, but I chose to go without a TE because I did not want to drop anyone from my bench. My bench consisted of: Luck - out Watkins - out Olsen - bye Steve Smith - out L. Miller - bye Jeffery - out I wasn't dropping any of those players to pick up another TE who would potentially get me what, 5 points if I'm lucky? I already had to drop Blount for Tavon Austin earlier that day to fill my WR position which I wasn't too happy about it. Fortunately I was able to win anyway so the TE decision paid off. Oh, and in light of this scenario, I believe we need to add an additional bench spot. I noticed, and I think someone else has done it too this season. I always look at the bench to see if there are any chumps that are droppable before I say anything. I have been in that situation myself. I don't really have a lot of flexibility in my bench either now because of injuries. Yeah 5 spots is one too few. We should change that for next season. If not two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 3:11:42 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If not two. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised no one commented on me not starting a TE this past week - aside from 'Benjamin' on Yahoo Smack Talk - but I figured I'd explain anyway. I think this has been done in the past, but I chose to go without a TE because I did not want to drop anyone from my bench. My bench consisted of: Luck - out Watkins - out Olsen - bye Steve Smith - out L. Miller - bye Jeffery - out I wasn't dropping any of those players to pick up another TE who would potentially get me what, 5 points if I'm lucky? I already had to drop Blount for Tavon Austin earlier that day to fill my WR position which I wasn't too happy about it. Fortunately I was able to win anyway so the TE decision paid off.
Oh, and in light of this scenario, I believe we need to add an additional bench spot. I noticed, and I think someone else has done it too this season. I always look at the bench to see if there are any chumps that are droppable before I say anything. I have been in that situation myself. I don't really have a lot of flexibility in my bench either now because of injuries. Yeah 5 spots is one too few. We should change that for next season. If not two. 2 just ain't happening big boy
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2015 12:06:22 PM EDT
[#43]
What are the odd that Jordan Matthews outscores Eli by 1.02 points tonight?
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2015 12:31:39 PM EDT
[#44]
You almost got there Tom. It was close.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2015 3:40:22 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You almost got there Tom. It was close. I'm pretty happy with my team right now, just need to make better sit/start decisions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2015 6:20:10 PM EDT
[#46]
I'm thinking about going without a kicker this week.. Not sure I want to drop McManus right now.
I think I have a chance without him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2015 6:42:57 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm thinking about going without a kicker this week.. Not sure I want to drop McManus right now. I think I have a chance without him. I'm considering rolling without a DST in my other league. Have GB on bye, they've been treating me well - and it's a dynasty league so there aren't any guys on my bench that I really want to drop. For your consideration, my week 7 starters: QB - Brady RB - Lynch, Duke Johnson WR - A. Brown, Edelman, Tate TE - Ertz OP - Luck (flex position that can be QB/RB/WR/TE, basically a 2-QB league) DST - GB [bye] K - Viniateri Bench: QB - Osweiler [bye], been holding him for two years waiting for Peyton to retire. Can't drop him now. RB - Forte [bye] Langford (Forte handcuff) [bye], Rawls (Lynch handcuff) Duke Johnson, Jerick McKinnon WR - Cobb [bye], D-Jax, Andrew Hawkins, Amendola (Edelman handcuff) TE - Owen Daniels [bye] If I had to, I'd drop Edelman for whatever DST is available - and that's a pretty short list. Best available DST: MIN (@ DET) DAL (@ NYG) NYG (vs. DAL) SD (vs. OAK) With no DST, ESPN has me as a 23 point favorite. I'm undefeated. 6-0. My opponent is the guy that had no business beating me for the league championship last year but did it anyways. Beating him with no DST would be extra sweet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2015 1:41:29 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I noticed, and I think someone else has done it too this season. I always look at the bench to see if there are any chumps that are droppable before I say anything. I have been in that situation myself. I don't really have a lot of flexibility in my bench either now because of injuries. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised no one commented on me not starting a TE this past week - aside from 'Benjamin' on Yahoo Smack Talk - but I figured I'd explain anyway. I think this has been done in the past, but I chose to go without a TE because I did not want to drop anyone from my bench. My bench consisted of: Luck - out Watkins - out Olsen - bye Steve Smith - out L. Miller - bye Jeffery - out I wasn't dropping any of those players to pick up another TE who would potentially get me what, 5 points if I'm lucky? I already had to drop Blount for Tavon Austin earlier that day to fill my WR position which I wasn't too happy about it. Fortunately I was able to win anyway so the TE decision paid off.
Oh, and in light of this scenario, I believe we need to add an additional bench spot. I noticed, and I think someone else has done it too this season. I always look at the bench to see if there are any chumps that are droppable before I say anything. I have been in that situation myself. I don't really have a lot of flexibility in my bench either now because of injuries. I did that and it was for the same reason, I'm not going to drop someone decent / good for a one time starter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2015 7:05:59 PM EDT
[#49]
I've said it before and I'll probably say it again - this is a very competitive league. You guys know what you are doing. I'm proud to have you all as league mates.
When the 9th place team (out of 10!) has the 3rd highest point total, you know you're dealing with competence from top to bottom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2015 7:15:45 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've said it before and I'll probably say it again - this is a very competitive league. You guys know what you are doing. I'm proud to have you all as league mates. When the 9th place team (out of 10!) has the 3rd highest point total, you know you're dealing with competence from top to bottom. And the 10th place team finally got a win... I don't think his team has scored that many points all season. He must be excited..
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
